Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

You have been very clear and have given a huge amount of information. Can I assume that everything that you have said is more than applicable to retail and hospitality which, arguably, as a sector, is symptomatic of all the issues, both in systemic terms and policy terms, that you outline?

This is my last wee question because I am aware of the time and the convener is giving me a warning look. I think that everything that you have said applies to retail and hospitality many times over. For the record, can you confirm that?

I suppose that fiscal drag is going to kick in as well. I am probing whether we have considered that enough in the visioning that we do on town centres. I agree with what you have said about multi-unit flexibility, a move away from full repairing and insuring leases and so on, but there is a cost associated with that flexibility for retailers. Quite often, the business model that they choose to adopt is to target a certain sector or socioeconomic profile. I am trying to join the dots between the complexity of that and the cost, because that represents a risk for retailers when we have these challenges for certain sectors of our society.

There always seems to be a bit of serendipity when I am last to ask a question, as a panellist inevitably leads on to the area that I want to explore. David Lonsdale has just done so this time.

David, this question is for you and perhaps Martin Newman. Having listened to the discussion, I have been struck by the many different areas where we have touched on the wider economic macroenvironment, which, as we are aware, is facing significant challenges.

I read a paper on the KPMG/Ipsos Retail Think Tank website that quotes Ruth Gregory and discusses the level of consumer debt and how much it rose in quarter 1 of this year. I will perhaps put my question to David Lonsdale and Martin Newman initially, but other panellists may also wish to comment. Have we reflected the challenges for consumers enough in the terms of reference and scope of our inquiry, given what we have heard about the energy crisis, the cost of living crisis, Brexit starting to hit home, wage depression and so on? It is all very well to have grand ideas and reflect on business owners but, if consumers do not have money to spend, we need to factor that in as well.

I see Martin nodding. Perhaps he would like to comment first, as the paper that I mentioned is on his website.

Do David Lonsdale or our other panellists have any final comments? Are there things that we have not had a chance to discuss today? Given the economic crises that we are facing across a range of areas, is there anything else that it would be useful for the committee to hear?

Good morning, panel. It is nice to see you all.

My question follows on from our discussion of sexual harassment. I will focus on the gender pay gap, into which we had some insight in your introductory remarks. I would like to understand the situation a bit more. We can all see that a lot of work is being done on it, such as the Scottish Government’s “A fairer Scotland for women: gender pay gap action plan”, but I am interested in understanding what more practical solutions can be implemented, specifically by the Scottish Government, bearing in mind that there are systemic issues that are particularly prevalent in retail and hospitality—we all understand that. In other words, give us your bright ideas about what the Scottish Government can do as opposed to measures for which we would have to rely on the UK Government.

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. It took me quite a long time to get into Edinburgh today, too, so I have every sympathy with you.

I want to ask about three broad areas. First, you have indicated that you are developing measures of success for the programme, but I want to get a little more flavour of how those measures will feed into later iterations of the people survey. Indeed, on the back of that, can you tell us what will be put in the public domain? In other words, my question is not how you but how we will test the measures of success, given our responsibility for scrutinising public administration issues.

Obviously, the new process applies to former ministers, so what consideration have you given to how iterations of the process will be communicated to them and over what timescale, both in relation to former ministers and in relation to ministers who are currently in post—five years down the line, how will they be communicated with? I am not talking about the detail of the process, but they need to understand that they have a responsibility to be across the process at a given point in time and as it evolves. Where is your thinking on that?

I agree completely but, with regard to Lesley Fraser’s comments, if this is done under a UK civil service remit and approach, how will the different and more nuanced approach that we are taking here be reflected?

I also want to hear a bit more about the extent to which the data that is published will be quantitative or qualitative. After all, the biggest change in all of this will be to culture and behaviour, which are always the hardest things to change. In that respect, it is the qualitative insights that give that flavour. How will success be measured or reflected in the next version of the people survey? Are you planning to include additional Scottish Parliament elements to get a sense of that?

Thank you. I have seen a lot of this kind of development in my previous career and there is a risk that the process can become the absolute. In that respect, I was just a bit surprised to note that the review of bringing in propriety and ethics is the last step in the process, because the risk then is that the ethical approach is applied from a deontological rather than a consequentialist perspective. What is your thinking about that being the last step in the chain and therefore how you can look back at it from a consequentialist, ethical basis—in other words, on an outcome basis, because this is all about the outcome and not just about the process?